Dismissed

N.Chinnabbayi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Nov 2020WP/4705/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order on a writ petition sought under modes of habeas corpus and mandamus concerning remission benefits for a life convict. The court disposed of the matter by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation before the competent authority within four weeks; direction to authority to pass orders within eight weeks; miscellaneous petitions closed.

N.Chinnabbayi Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4705 of 2020

¶3

(Taken up through video conferencing)

¶4

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar)

¶5

I.A.No.1 of 2020 has been filed for allowing the petitioner to

¶6

amend the writ petition.

¶7

In view of facts and circumstances, I.A.No.1 of 2020 is ordered and it shall be treated as part of the writ petition.

¶8

Heard Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner as per instructions of A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee. The writ petition was initially filed for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Prison, Nellore, Nellore District and set him at liberty declaring the action of the respondents in not giving special remission in his favour in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department, dated 09.01.2019, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶9

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the total period already undergone by the petitioner including remission as on date is 11 years 6 months and 4 days, whereas G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 09.01.2019 prescribes that in case of life convict, one can be set free if undergone an actual sentence of 7 years including remand and remission period as on 26.01.2019.

¶10

However, during pendency of the writ petition, since the petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment, the Court considered that this writ petition may not be treated as Habeas Corpus Writ Petition. Subsequently, the petitioner filed amendment petition

¶11

¶12

i.e., I.A.No.1 of 2020, which has been directed to be treated as part of the writ petition. In the said interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

¶13

“The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents for not extending the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department dt.09.01.2019, to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department dt.9.01.2019, and release the petitioner, forthwith, and pass such other and further orders to meet the ends of justice.”

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation afresh before competent authority. If such representation is filed within four weeks from today before competent authority, the authority concerned may examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law considering G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 09.01.2019 preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of filing of such representation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

___________________________ JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR

¶17

______________________ JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶18

Date: 09.11.2020 Note: Issue CC by 11.11.2020 (B/o). Ivd

N.Chinnabbayi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Chinnabbayi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Ap Vs Naram Venkata Lakshmi

Gandhi Institute of Technology Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Sunitha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manda Sai Krishna Vs the State of Ap

Veguru Radhaiah at Pedda Radhaiah Vs K. Nagaraju

G.P Joseph Vs State of Andhra Pradesh